Darwin Atc
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: anywhere but there
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DN to AsA, greater use of LAHSO, TMP....... pipedreams!!!! This stuff and more has been discussed over and over and over. Didn't happen in my lifetime in DN and won't happen in yours NFR.
lackov,
What I meant was light twins and Brass merto types all being similar speeds. 3 - 4 nm / min.
Having said that the metro does fit in the light category doesn't it.
What I meant was light twins and Brass merto types all being similar speeds. 3 - 4 nm / min.
Having said that the metro does fit in the light category doesn't it.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: your worst nightmare
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No probs!
No malice in my post, just a bit of a self-pitying p!ss-take. Meant nothing by it apart from a giggle. Though you're absolutely correct in your definitions.
If you're talking weights though, its only the Metro II that slips under the magical 5700kgs (MTOW of 5670kg from memory, but I may well be wrong).
No malice in my post, just a bit of a self-pitying p!ss-take. Meant nothing by it apart from a giggle. Though you're absolutely correct in your definitions.
If you're talking weights though, its only the Metro II that slips under the magical 5700kgs (MTOW of 5670kg from memory, but I may well be wrong).
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IF ASA took over, the TMA airspace would be done from Brisbane, almost guaranteed, Tower staff would be reduced to similar to CB or CG numbers, I suspect about 12 only left (couple of conversion bodies is far easier, less uniform, more pay, know procedures, airspace design and operators; also need to have someone do the training of the civies) or sent there, new kiddies straight from the college.
Still talk of moving ES Approach to ML?
Still talk of moving ES Approach to ML?
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A bit off the topic of Darwin ATC, but to pick up on the weights ...
As far as ATC is concerned, RENURPP has the right criterion for "Light". 7000kg is the cutoff for "Light" in wake turbulence categories and that's what affects us and you, traffic wise.
Interesting to note that for a short time, certain Metros were operating at my place as wake turbulence Light while on night freight ops, medium for daytime RPT.
The other definition of "light", <5700kg, seems to me to be rather arbitrary and often b u l l s h i t, though I do understand it is an ICAO benchmark.
eg we can't point a Twin Otter at certain obstacles because it is less than 5700kg MAUW and therefore supposedly cannot outclimb them in the event of engine failure. Yet it is STOL and goes up like a love-sick angel.
On the other hand, a DC3, which can barely outclimb the curvature of the earth all engines operating, and certainly cannot with one out (that has been demonstrated at my airport), can legitimately be pointed at the same obstacle IN IMC simply because it is >5700kg MAUW.
The rule does, sensibly, cover a PA31. Perhaps it needs to be re-defined.
Cheers
AA
As far as ATC is concerned, RENURPP has the right criterion for "Light". 7000kg is the cutoff for "Light" in wake turbulence categories and that's what affects us and you, traffic wise.
Interesting to note that for a short time, certain Metros were operating at my place as wake turbulence Light while on night freight ops, medium for daytime RPT.
The other definition of "light", <5700kg, seems to me to be rather arbitrary and often b u l l s h i t, though I do understand it is an ICAO benchmark.
eg we can't point a Twin Otter at certain obstacles because it is less than 5700kg MAUW and therefore supposedly cannot outclimb them in the event of engine failure. Yet it is STOL and goes up like a love-sick angel.
On the other hand, a DC3, which can barely outclimb the curvature of the earth all engines operating, and certainly cannot with one out (that has been demonstrated at my airport), can legitimately be pointed at the same obstacle IN IMC simply because it is >5700kg MAUW.
The rule does, sensibly, cover a PA31. Perhaps it needs to be re-defined.
Cheers
AA
